RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04736 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was in the medical hold unit going through the medical board process; however, because of all of the bureaucratic red tape that her First Sergeant placed her through, it caused her to “snap” due to her service connected mental health condition. Her condition caused her to have poor impulse control and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Because of her mental health condition that was directly caused by her service, she was given a general under honorable conditions discharge when she should have been medically retired. She was discharged while being medically boarded and because it was so delayed her mental health condition deteriorated. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Jul 06, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 8 Feb 11, the applicant received an Article 15, under violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for on divers occasions between on or about (o/a) 18 Jan 11 and o/a 19 Jan 11, without authority, go from her appointed place of duty; o/a 25 Jan and 26 Jan 11, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, and o/a 3 Feb and 4 Feb 11, without authority, absent herself from her place of duty to which she was required to be. Under violation of Article 107, o/a 29 Dec 10; o/a 20 Jan 11, and o/a 4 Feb 11, the applicant made a false official statements to both a senior officer and a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C), with a DOR of 15 Feb 11; restriction to the limits of the base for 45 days, and 45 days of extra duty. On 11 May 11, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 10 months, and 1 day of active service. On 12 May 12, the DVA rated the applicant with a combined 70 percent disability, with 50 percent based on a major depressive disorder. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, which is attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error occurred during the disability process or at time of separation. DPFD notes, in Apr 11, a Review In-Lieu-Of Medical Evaluation Board (RILO MEB) was submitted to the Medical Retention Standards Branch (AFPC/DPANM) at the Air Force Personnel Center. On 4 Apr 11, the file was reviewed and a decision was rendered finding the applicant fit for continued military service In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 48-123, Physical Examination Techniques. In addition, DPFD notes, paragraph 5.3.12.3., states certain psychiatric disorders render an individual unsuited for duty, rather than unfit, and are subject to administrative separation (IAW AFI 36-3208, para 5.11). The applicant's two mental diagnoses were determined to be unsuitable for continue military service rather than unfitting (boardable). Further, DPFD notes that when there is a question as to whether an individual has a condition that may require a full MEB, an abbreviated RILO MEB is forwarded to the AFPC/DPANM for review. AFI 41-210, paragraph 10.1.4.14., states in instances when members have incidental findings or defects and it is not certain if an MEB is required, the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) may send a RILO MEB. If the condition is one that is boardable, the servicing MTF is advised to complete a full MEB for consideration by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). If, however, the condition is not boardable (unsuiting vice unfitting) and the member does not fall afoul of Air Force medical retention standards or deployment requirements, the individual is found fit for continued military service and returned to duty. In the applicant's case, the diagnoses' were Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder which are not boardable conditions. A complete copy of the DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The Psychiatric Advisor has been deprived of sufficient relevant clinical or service information upon which to challenge the decision of the Military Department. According to the Advisory of the Acting Chief of the USAF Physical Disability Division on 22 Dec 14, the applicant’s diagnoses of Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder were found to be not boardable but unsuiting and the applicant was subsequently administratively discharged. Since this advisor was not given an opportunity to review those records, she utilized the facts listed in the above DPFD advisory and existing policies and procedures, in providing a likely explanation of the applicant’s discharge and a likely outcome even if a full MEB was carried out. First of all, Adjustment Disorder has been, for decades, listed in Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) policies as a medical condition not considered a compensable disability by the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES). Although a recent revision of DoD policy [Apr 13] now acknowledges that an individual with a Chronic Adjustment Disorder renders the individual eligible for processing via a MEB, the Acute Adjustment Disorder [that is a diagnosis initially made based upon an identifiable stressor, usually lasting no more than 6 months] continues to be held as non-compensable and non-ratable by the Military Departments. Unfortunately for the applicant in 2011, the old policy was in place and the condition could be a basis for an administrative separation but not for an MEB. Moreover, there is no evidence that at the time of discharge from service the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder would have met diagnostic criteria to be characterized as a Chronic Adjustment Disorder. Personality Disorders also remain to be disqualifying conditions, but are not considered a compensable disability. Therefore, unless additional service and post-service clinical and administrative information is presented for the review, the Psychiatric Advisor would not be able to prove that error or injustice took place in the decision rendered. A complete copy of the Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the recommendations and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04736 in Executive Session on 10 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04736 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 22 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 11 Mar 16. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Mar 16. 1 2